I spent Saturday into Sunday at the Ohio Lesbian Festival. I had never truly been in women's space before. What a transformative experience.
I experienced radical welcome. Having had some concerns over the inclusivity of women's festivals, I was thrilled to see transfolk and gender non-conformists everywhere. Everyone was so genuinely happy to be together, whether they had camped together for 20 years or just met. Everyone offered support where they could, and everyone's needs were met.
The very first thing that happened to me at Lez Fest was an act of hospitality. We arrived at the gate, and the friendly women wearing bright orange vests directed us to a campsite. We parked in the unloading zone, started to set up the tent, and found that we had no tent poles. After diverting panic, we realized that sleeping in the back of my car might actually be more spacious, and planned to do so. I drove us back to the corner. "Here's the completely embarrassing thing that just happened to me," I said to Denise, the woman who had told us where we were likely to find a space. I proceeded to explain our situation, and asked her if she could point us towards car camping. She blinked once and replied, "I have an extra tent you can use." I was stunned. "Is this really happening?" I think I said out loud. Denise walked off and came back a minute later carrying a small tent that exactly meet our needs. We thanked her profusely, slept and nested in her tent, and returned it poorly folded before we left.
I experienced so much butch hospitality it melted my heart over and over.
Festival Crushes
1) Elizabeth, the most important woman in the world, gave me my coffee on Sunday morning. I staggered down the roads from our campsite to the kitchen, grateful that everyone was aware we were all waking up and we had all probably had later nights than we are used to. All the women on the paths could tell who was at the nod level, who could manage "Good morning," and who wasn't even ready for eye contact yet. I reached the kitchen knowing that I could get what I needed with nothing more than, "Coffee please." Elizabeth reached for it and asked, "Room for cream?" I nodded. "Yes please." She overwhelmed me with the cream-ish selection, and I thought I had already said, "Half-and-half, please." I walked away to drink most of my coffee in solitude, took some next steps in my morning plan, and wandered back when I was ready to refill and get a cup for the friend I was preparing to wake up. We had a lovely conversation once I could combine more than two words at a time.
2) The blond-haired butch in the purple shirt who brought us zucchini bread.
Free the Nipple
I got to LezFest by way of a performance booking. (I've been doing burlesque lately.) I am so grateful for that opportunity, because I may never have gone to a lesbian festival otherwise. I found out the week before the festival that nudity requirements were a bit more relaxed than those where I live. So I performed without pasties on. This was very likely a once-in-a-lifetime chance for me, and I wasn't going to miss it. The public liberation of my body and its celebration by others has made such a positive influence on my life this year.
Mindfulness in my Body
Sunday morning, my friend wanted to go to a mindfulness meditation workshop. We parted and I did other things, then wandered her way. I joined the circle just as they stood up between segments of the workshop. Women opened the circle for me and created space in such a way that I felt welcomed and not disruptive. The woman leading the meditation had us focus on each part of our bodies from the feet up, first feeling the pressure where our feet met the earth and rocking back and forth to find center. When we sat back down, she helped us to find comfortable positions in which we felt centered and could support our breath. She spoke a lot about our low belly or deep belly. She described it as our "generative center," the seat of our creative energy and the center of our bodies. It was the most positively anyone has ever encouraged me to think of my belly, and I spent the rest of the festival and the weekend trying to physically center myself and honor my generative power.
Showing posts with label womanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label womanism. Show all posts
23 September 2015
05 September 2015
evolving views on childbearing
I'm surrounded by pregnant women at work. I am fascinated, occasionally disgusted, and above all, deeply respectful. I honor the courage and the strength that it takes to use your body to bring a new life into the world.
Two women have accepted my hand on their bellies this year. The first was a peer, pregnant with her first child. I watched others touch her to feel her baby move for months before shyly asking, at the baby shower the day before she went on maternity leave, if I could feel the baby, because I hadn't yet. The baby fluttered just the tiniest bit. It was the first time I can remember feeling an infant before it was born. When I held her in my arms later, I sat in awe of this tiny life.
The second was a woman in her early forties who was pregnant with her third. At the impromptu cake send-off we had for her, she saw me standing in a corner, said, "You haven't felt her yet. Here," and placed both my hands on her belly. She then proceeded to shake it with her own hands to rouse the baby, who responded by squirming--not much, but definitely moving limbs. I have learned so much from her mother's openness.
In a way, I feel fortunate that I have frequent cause to consider my decisions about children. This way, I know that my choices are my own, and I feel confident in them. I used to be certain that I wanted to raise children, and now I'm not so sure. I have no interest in parenting alone. If I build a life with a partner who wants children, I am open to sharing parenthood. At this point, I feel no desire to carry and birth a baby. There are plenty of children in the world who need homes. I am committed to adopting rather than reproducing.
All things may change.
Two women have accepted my hand on their bellies this year. The first was a peer, pregnant with her first child. I watched others touch her to feel her baby move for months before shyly asking, at the baby shower the day before she went on maternity leave, if I could feel the baby, because I hadn't yet. The baby fluttered just the tiniest bit. It was the first time I can remember feeling an infant before it was born. When I held her in my arms later, I sat in awe of this tiny life.
The second was a woman in her early forties who was pregnant with her third. At the impromptu cake send-off we had for her, she saw me standing in a corner, said, "You haven't felt her yet. Here," and placed both my hands on her belly. She then proceeded to shake it with her own hands to rouse the baby, who responded by squirming--not much, but definitely moving limbs. I have learned so much from her mother's openness.
In a way, I feel fortunate that I have frequent cause to consider my decisions about children. This way, I know that my choices are my own, and I feel confident in them. I used to be certain that I wanted to raise children, and now I'm not so sure. I have no interest in parenting alone. If I build a life with a partner who wants children, I am open to sharing parenthood. At this point, I feel no desire to carry and birth a baby. There are plenty of children in the world who need homes. I am committed to adopting rather than reproducing.
All things may change.
21 June 2014
Dyke Trans March
Went to my first Dyke Trans March today. That seems like it really should have happened already! I made a spur-of-the-moment sign that said "Ze" and marched along my way. Originally I thought to stay with C and the truck, but he was passing out candy and I wasn't feeling outgoing. I wound my way through the back half of the parade, enjoying all the different genders and colors and shapes of people, outfits and accessories and banners.
The elderly of Bloomfield seemed confused but curious. Lots of cars drove by in the opposite lane on Liberty and honked, drivers flashing peace signs. When we reached the end of the march at Friendship Park, there was a potluck and everybody sat around talking. Some people burned incense in the cracks of the sidewalk. I felt community: let's break bread together.
Low point: The police in our escort decided that the right moment to idle their motorcycles and circle the park was when a queer woman of color spoke to the crowd.
Favorite signs: "FUCK TERFs" "Are you a boy or a girl? NO"
Favorite part of the parade: Being near the marching band!
I love that there is a part of the community where I can go to share an emphasis on simple visibility. I felt like it didn't matter that I was not reaching out to people or starting conversations. I was there, authentic in my body and my personhood, and that was enough.
The elderly of Bloomfield seemed confused but curious. Lots of cars drove by in the opposite lane on Liberty and honked, drivers flashing peace signs. When we reached the end of the march at Friendship Park, there was a potluck and everybody sat around talking. Some people burned incense in the cracks of the sidewalk. I felt community: let's break bread together.
Low point: The police in our escort decided that the right moment to idle their motorcycles and circle the park was when a queer woman of color spoke to the crowd.
Favorite signs: "FUCK TERFs" "Are you a boy or a girl? NO"
Favorite part of the parade: Being near the marching band!
I love that there is a part of the community where I can go to share an emphasis on simple visibility. I felt like it didn't matter that I was not reaching out to people or starting conversations. I was there, authentic in my body and my personhood, and that was enough.
02 November 2012
pre-election thoughts, 2012
i am legitimately anxious about this election. never have i felt so strongly that my entire life depends on the outcome of one day.
i'm sick of watching candidates attack each other on television instead of talking about what they'll do better. the few positive ads get swallowed up in all the negative noise.
i feel every day like my freedom as a woman and a queer person is being threatened, like it is at risk of being taken away. it goes far beyond the usual pro-life-vs-pro-choice argument. not only is my right to decide whether to have an abortion being threatened, but so is my right to decide whether to use birth control--for reproductive or other medical purposes. my freedom to choose who i marry is literally being put up for a vote by my neighbors. my freedom of education is being threatened by politicians who want to reduce student loans and to cut funding to schools. my right to control my own body is being actively threatened by politicians who believe that rape can be an act of God.
Senators and Congressmen, if your God is a god who will rape women so that more children can be conceived, then you should be looking for another god.
i am disgusted that there are so many Americans who believe they can justify voting for these threats to our rights, freedoms, and basic safety because "the economy's bad." i will not apologize for believing that money should never become more important than living human beings.
i'm sick of watching candidates attack each other on television instead of talking about what they'll do better. the few positive ads get swallowed up in all the negative noise.
i feel every day like my freedom as a woman and a queer person is being threatened, like it is at risk of being taken away. it goes far beyond the usual pro-life-vs-pro-choice argument. not only is my right to decide whether to have an abortion being threatened, but so is my right to decide whether to use birth control--for reproductive or other medical purposes. my freedom to choose who i marry is literally being put up for a vote by my neighbors. my freedom of education is being threatened by politicians who want to reduce student loans and to cut funding to schools. my right to control my own body is being actively threatened by politicians who believe that rape can be an act of God.
Senators and Congressmen, if your God is a god who will rape women so that more children can be conceived, then you should be looking for another god.
i am disgusted that there are so many Americans who believe they can justify voting for these threats to our rights, freedoms, and basic safety because "the economy's bad." i will not apologize for believing that money should never become more important than living human beings.
04 February 2012
The Pro-Child, Pro-Choice Manifesto
I value reproductive justice in large part because parenthood will never come easily for me. It can't happen by accident. I value children, and I do not take the opportunity to raise them for granted (in fact, I resent that there are people who have that luxury). It seems unfair to them, to the children themselves, that so many people who desperately want them can't raise them, and so many who have neither the resources nor the inclination to do so are faced with raising them.
Reproductive justice means more than abortion. It means the right to choose how, whether, and when you raise a family. It means better lives for children. It means parents who are more prepared. It means not just the ability to say no, I will not have a child, regardless of how I express my adult relationships. It also means the freedom to say yes, I want to provide a loving home for a child, to foster them into independent adulthood.
Reproductive justice is about repairing the world. It means creating better homes and stronger families. It means children who believe that they are gifts rather than burdens. It means having the choice to begin and sustain a healthy pregnancy, to prevent pregnancy, to terminate a pregnancy, to avoid and treat life-threatening conditions, to raise a child, to know one's partner thoroughly before embarking on the shared adventure that is parenthood, or to know oneself thoroughly before embarking on it alone. Reproductive justice is the creation of a world where everyone is loved, by others and by self. Reproductive justice is a world in which education precludes abortion--abortion, which is an indignity not just for the child, but for the mother. Reproductive justice is dignity. It is the empowerment of women and the education of men. It is the equalization of heteros and homos, single and married, parent and childless, cis and trans. Reproductive justice is justice.
Reproductive justice means more than abortion. It means the right to choose how, whether, and when you raise a family. It means better lives for children. It means parents who are more prepared. It means not just the ability to say no, I will not have a child, regardless of how I express my adult relationships. It also means the freedom to say yes, I want to provide a loving home for a child, to foster them into independent adulthood.
Reproductive justice is about repairing the world. It means creating better homes and stronger families. It means children who believe that they are gifts rather than burdens. It means having the choice to begin and sustain a healthy pregnancy, to prevent pregnancy, to terminate a pregnancy, to avoid and treat life-threatening conditions, to raise a child, to know one's partner thoroughly before embarking on the shared adventure that is parenthood, or to know oneself thoroughly before embarking on it alone. Reproductive justice is the creation of a world where everyone is loved, by others and by self. Reproductive justice is a world in which education precludes abortion--abortion, which is an indignity not just for the child, but for the mother. Reproductive justice is dignity. It is the empowerment of women and the education of men. It is the equalization of heteros and homos, single and married, parent and childless, cis and trans. Reproductive justice is justice.
29 August 2011
on chivalry
there are a few things in Boston that are going to take some getting used to after living in Pittsburgh. i've thought to write about them, but one in particular has grabbed my attention lately.
it's so great to live in a city with functional mass transit. they have the T system really well worked out here: trains run frequently, fares are reasonable, and you can use them to get pretty much everywhere. but the subway cars are always crowded. the seats are arranged like a cross between the D.C. metro and the NYC subway, with some facing forward/backward and a fair number along the sides of the car. there's plenty of room for standers as well.
here's what i've noticed: the only people who offer to give up their seats to anyone are women. one man did offer his seat to me last week, but he was middle-aged and clearly from out of town (visiting his college-aged daughter and her boyfriend, who were both seated near him and his wife), and only after i offered my seat to an elderly woman who got on the train a few stops after us. outwardly-appearing male people under the age of 40 never offer their seats to anyone. not all outwardly-appearing female people do, but with that one exception, all the people i've seen do so have been women or girls.
this gets me thinking. ever since i figured out that gender roles are not black-and-white, i've tried to be chivalrous. that is, i try to treat people with respect, and i try to treat women with a special level of it. part of this is the lesbian in me, hoping she will notice, and part of this is the gender rebel in me, trying to make people go what-the-fuck. but i never expect other women to behave this way; i always expect that men should.
if there is one seat left on the train and Chance and i are together, i always get to sit down.
the conclusion i'm drawing is, chivalry is not dead. chivalry will not die as long as there are butches.
the subsequent question: how does this relate to the still-foreign concept of outwardly heteronormative women performing chivalrous acts that their masculine counterparts do not?
it's so great to live in a city with functional mass transit. they have the T system really well worked out here: trains run frequently, fares are reasonable, and you can use them to get pretty much everywhere. but the subway cars are always crowded. the seats are arranged like a cross between the D.C. metro and the NYC subway, with some facing forward/backward and a fair number along the sides of the car. there's plenty of room for standers as well.
here's what i've noticed: the only people who offer to give up their seats to anyone are women. one man did offer his seat to me last week, but he was middle-aged and clearly from out of town (visiting his college-aged daughter and her boyfriend, who were both seated near him and his wife), and only after i offered my seat to an elderly woman who got on the train a few stops after us. outwardly-appearing male people under the age of 40 never offer their seats to anyone. not all outwardly-appearing female people do, but with that one exception, all the people i've seen do so have been women or girls.
this gets me thinking. ever since i figured out that gender roles are not black-and-white, i've tried to be chivalrous. that is, i try to treat people with respect, and i try to treat women with a special level of it. part of this is the lesbian in me, hoping she will notice, and part of this is the gender rebel in me, trying to make people go what-the-fuck. but i never expect other women to behave this way; i always expect that men should.
if there is one seat left on the train and Chance and i are together, i always get to sit down.
the conclusion i'm drawing is, chivalry is not dead. chivalry will not die as long as there are butches.
the subsequent question: how does this relate to the still-foreign concept of outwardly heteronormative women performing chivalrous acts that their masculine counterparts do not?
10 April 2010
on [paternalistic misogynistic] censorship
*sigh* i'm reluctant to admit i'm a feminist because if i did it full-time it would be exhausting and terribly, terribly frustrating.
guess what! i have a vagina and it bleeds monthly! and i get cramps and migraines and they make me pretty miserable for a couple days. i purchase and use pads and i don't particularly like tampons but i use them anyway sometimes.
VAGINA!
so there.
p.s.: the clitoris trumps any part of the male anatomy. always.
guess what! i have a vagina and it bleeds monthly! and i get cramps and migraines and they make me pretty miserable for a couple days. i purchase and use pads and i don't particularly like tampons but i use them anyway sometimes.
VAGINA!
so there.
p.s.: the clitoris trumps any part of the male anatomy. always.
29 March 2010
realization?
distracted. can't concentrate. don't know why.
understanding gendered spaces in a way i never have before:
"men's space" isn't a place where
men want to keep women out,
it's a place where
no women want to go.
specifically:
i am never going to be comfortable around free weights.
especially when they get their own room.
understanding gendered spaces in a way i never have before:
"men's space" isn't a place where
men want to keep women out,
it's a place where
no women want to go.
specifically:
i am never going to be comfortable around free weights.
especially when they get their own room.
24 February 2010
Let's add masturbation, menstruation, & SIDS
this may be the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor
Utah just secured its spot at #2 on my list of Places Never to Go. (#1, for those of you keeping track, is still Texas.) They're outlawing miscarriage.
The Salt Lake Tribune article linked above makes a good effort to including both the language of the bill and some of its (unintended?) implications in a limited number of inches. I think the blogosphere (see Jezebel, Feministe, RH Reality Check, and even Dan Savage) has done a better job of exposing the actual meaning of this legislation.
Utah wants to prosecute women who "intentionally, knowingly, [or] recklessly" cause the death of their unborn children. It started with the case of a 17-year-old woman who paid a man $150 to beat her up when she was seven months pregnant in the hopes that she would lose her baby. Ok--that was probably a stupid decision on her part. I tend to think it would do more good to examine the societal structures that made this poor girl feel it was better to pay someone to injure her than to carry a baby to term, which I suspect are the same structures that led an unmarried 17-year-old to become pregnant in the first place (abstinence-only sex education, limited access to contraception, the devaluation of everything about a women except her sexuality....you get the idea).
Even if you're not going to examine the underlying structures (and work to fix them), you at least have to admit the fact that miscarriage is a natural phenomenon. As many as 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, for any number of reasons. To criminalize "reckless" behavior that results in a miscarriage could be to criminalize drinking alcohol, playing contact sports, walking down stairs without holding onto a railing, and staying in a domestic violence situation with an abusive partner because you are unable to leave. To criminalize "reckless" behavior that results in a miscarriage could also be to criminalize any of these actions, and others, in which a woman engages when she doesn't even know she's pregnant. The majority of miscarriages take place in the first trimester, and the majority of women are well into that period before they find out they are pregnant.
How will Utah determine whether a woman engaged in criminal behavior without investigating every miscarriage in the state? Any woman who loses her baby could potentially become the target of a criminal investigation, and that while she is going through what is already an emotionally devastating experience.
I get that the main intention of the bill is to punish women for procuring illegal abortions, which are an outrageous enough attack on the autonomy of women in themselves. (If legal abortions were more readily available and less violently contested--and if the underlying societal structures that make so many women feel the need to obtain them were not in place--this wouldn't even be an issue.) But inherent to that sentence, and as Jill from Feministe points out, the main intention of the bill is really to punish women.
My favorite part might be how the bill's sponsor, Margaret Dayton, actually said while arguing against lifting the "reckless" specification from the bill, "I don't think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman."
Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor
Utah just secured its spot at #2 on my list of Places Never to Go. (#1, for those of you keeping track, is still Texas.) They're outlawing miscarriage.
The Salt Lake Tribune article linked above makes a good effort to including both the language of the bill and some of its (unintended?) implications in a limited number of inches. I think the blogosphere (see Jezebel, Feministe, RH Reality Check, and even Dan Savage) has done a better job of exposing the actual meaning of this legislation.
Utah wants to prosecute women who "intentionally, knowingly, [or] recklessly" cause the death of their unborn children. It started with the case of a 17-year-old woman who paid a man $150 to beat her up when she was seven months pregnant in the hopes that she would lose her baby. Ok--that was probably a stupid decision on her part. I tend to think it would do more good to examine the societal structures that made this poor girl feel it was better to pay someone to injure her than to carry a baby to term, which I suspect are the same structures that led an unmarried 17-year-old to become pregnant in the first place (abstinence-only sex education, limited access to contraception, the devaluation of everything about a women except her sexuality....you get the idea).
Even if you're not going to examine the underlying structures (and work to fix them), you at least have to admit the fact that miscarriage is a natural phenomenon. As many as 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, for any number of reasons. To criminalize "reckless" behavior that results in a miscarriage could be to criminalize drinking alcohol, playing contact sports, walking down stairs without holding onto a railing, and staying in a domestic violence situation with an abusive partner because you are unable to leave. To criminalize "reckless" behavior that results in a miscarriage could also be to criminalize any of these actions, and others, in which a woman engages when she doesn't even know she's pregnant. The majority of miscarriages take place in the first trimester, and the majority of women are well into that period before they find out they are pregnant.
How will Utah determine whether a woman engaged in criminal behavior without investigating every miscarriage in the state? Any woman who loses her baby could potentially become the target of a criminal investigation, and that while she is going through what is already an emotionally devastating experience.
I get that the main intention of the bill is to punish women for procuring illegal abortions, which are an outrageous enough attack on the autonomy of women in themselves. (If legal abortions were more readily available and less violently contested--and if the underlying societal structures that make so many women feel the need to obtain them were not in place--this wouldn't even be an issue.) But inherent to that sentence, and as Jill from Feministe points out, the main intention of the bill is really to punish women.
My favorite part might be how the bill's sponsor, Margaret Dayton, actually said while arguing against lifting the "reckless" specification from the bill, "I don't think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman."
09 February 2010
Dove changes packaging color
Dove certainly has an interesting take on what it means to be a man:
while i appreciate the sentiment that men, too need to grow to be "comfortable in their own skin," this is an incredibly heterosexist, heteronormative interpretation of what that requires. which is apparently what viewers of the Superbowl want, judging by the preponderance of such commercials during the game. way to go, CBS, for running a pro-life ad without its counterpart (sponsored by Focus on the Family, no less), and such heterosexist, misogynistic ads as the above and the Dodge Charger ad that posits nice cars as rewards for obeying the annoying demands of the weaker sex. (although i will hang my head and thank you, as did the other queer woman in the room with me, for those Danica Patrick godaddy.com spots.)
while i appreciate the sentiment that men, too need to grow to be "comfortable in their own skin," this is an incredibly heterosexist, heteronormative interpretation of what that requires. which is apparently what viewers of the Superbowl want, judging by the preponderance of such commercials during the game. way to go, CBS, for running a pro-life ad without its counterpart (sponsored by Focus on the Family, no less), and such heterosexist, misogynistic ads as the above and the Dodge Charger ad that posits nice cars as rewards for obeying the annoying demands of the weaker sex. (although i will hang my head and thank you, as did the other queer woman in the room with me, for those Danica Patrick godaddy.com spots.)
29 April 2009
Obama on abortion
i watched President Obama's press conference tonight, streaming on youtube, which i think is its own animal that may deserve its own attention. (we live in the information age. no denying it.) and the part that grabbed me the most was his answer to a reporter's question on the Freedom of Choice Act.
i love Obama's views on abortion; they are my own exactly:
"[...M]y view on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake [...] if they suggest [...] that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with, and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
(read the transcript on nytimes.com)
i love Obama's views on abortion; they are my own exactly:
"[...M]y view on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake [...] if they suggest [...] that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with, and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day, and I think they are in a better position to make these decisions, ultimately, than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.
The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is, I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again."
(read the transcript on nytimes.com)
04 April 2009
[on the rag]
i told you, "i've decided that tampons
are the greatest invention ever."
and you said, "yes!!
because they can make you feel like there's nothing wrong with you!"
...and i wonder:
is there something wrong with me?
i am distrusted
because i bleed this much and don't die,
but maybe
i should distrust those who can't bleed this much
and live.
who decided
this needed to be
taken care of,
cleaned up,
fixed?
that it was taboo,
not to be talked about,
even when i am in pain
so bad it makes me not want to move?
when did my
menstruation
become
pathologized?
there is nothing unnatural
or wrong about this.
even the moon runs in cycles--
monthly, at that--
but at least she gets to go into hiding for a few days.
i will celebrate it.
i will go out and paint the town red
with the blood of my mothers
my sisters
my cousins, my daughters.
and maybe this is just my inner feminist
bleeding through,
but if your body touches my body
so deeply
that i bleed your blood and i follow your path,
how could we not talk about it?
are the greatest invention ever."
and you said, "yes!!
because they can make you feel like there's nothing wrong with you!"
...and i wonder:
is there something wrong with me?
i am distrusted
because i bleed this much and don't die,
but maybe
i should distrust those who can't bleed this much
and live.
who decided
this needed to be
taken care of,
cleaned up,
fixed?
that it was taboo,
not to be talked about,
even when i am in pain
so bad it makes me not want to move?
when did my
menstruation
become
pathologized?
there is nothing unnatural
or wrong about this.
even the moon runs in cycles--
monthly, at that--
but at least she gets to go into hiding for a few days.
i will celebrate it.
i will go out and paint the town red
with the blood of my mothers
my sisters
my cousins, my daughters.
and maybe this is just my inner feminist
bleeding through,
but if your body touches my body
so deeply
that i bleed your blood and i follow your path,
how could we not talk about it?
05 October 2008
pro-life?
i realize that i may not be so much pro-choice as i am anti-pro-life.
i walked past the Catholic church on my way to work this afternoon, and there were two or three dozen people lining either side of the street in front of it, holding signs that said "Abortion Kills Babies," "Abortion Hurts Women," "Pray for an End to Abortion," and "Lord, Forgive Us and Our Nation." (my favorite was the iteration of the last one, being held by a 5-year-old girl.) there were a few others that i don't remember so clearly, and one hand-drawn one (the rest were computerized and identical) that said "Babies are gifts--don't throw them away!" and had pictures of gift-wrapped packages on it. at least they didn't have the gory placards.
the one man i spoke to, while i was waiting for the walk signal to cross the intersection, told me that he was with the Catholic church, though he didn't make it clear if all the members of the group were. i had hoped so, because it doesn't make any sense for them to protest the Catholic church, which is staunchly pro-life. (we used to have the opportunity to get service hours for skipping classes in high school to go to the March for Life in D.C. i always thought this was only fair if they would give me service hours for going to the counter-rally with my congregation, which i never did, but would have been interesting to make a fuss about.)
it is often true, at least for me, that we don't know what we believe until we encounter something that stands in opposition to it. i have said for some time that i am anti-abortion, but also pro-choice: i would rather work to change the social system that makes women feel they need to have abortions than to make the practice illegal. i don't believe it should be legislated. but walking down the street made me think of all the arguments i could make in favor of abortion, if only i hadn't been on my way to work and had time to get into a conversation with these people. (i love talking with picketers, especially ones who are supporting something i oppose.) for example: what about those babies that aren't gifts? are you really going to tell a girl who got pregnant because she was raped that that was a gift from God? what about the fact that the planet is already overpopulated and there are children who are starving, children who don't have basic healthcare, children who have no place to live? shouldn't we try to take care of the people who are already here before those who aren't? and how does abortion "hurt women," anyway?
so maybe i'm not as anti-abortion as i think i am. i still think it's a terrible thing, and i would love to see a world in which no woman ever felt it was necessary to go through that, but in the meantime, i can hardly argue against it.
feel free to dispute!
i walked past the Catholic church on my way to work this afternoon, and there were two or three dozen people lining either side of the street in front of it, holding signs that said "Abortion Kills Babies," "Abortion Hurts Women," "Pray for an End to Abortion," and "Lord, Forgive Us and Our Nation." (my favorite was the iteration of the last one, being held by a 5-year-old girl.) there were a few others that i don't remember so clearly, and one hand-drawn one (the rest were computerized and identical) that said "Babies are gifts--don't throw them away!" and had pictures of gift-wrapped packages on it. at least they didn't have the gory placards.
the one man i spoke to, while i was waiting for the walk signal to cross the intersection, told me that he was with the Catholic church, though he didn't make it clear if all the members of the group were. i had hoped so, because it doesn't make any sense for them to protest the Catholic church, which is staunchly pro-life. (we used to have the opportunity to get service hours for skipping classes in high school to go to the March for Life in D.C. i always thought this was only fair if they would give me service hours for going to the counter-rally with my congregation, which i never did, but would have been interesting to make a fuss about.)
it is often true, at least for me, that we don't know what we believe until we encounter something that stands in opposition to it. i have said for some time that i am anti-abortion, but also pro-choice: i would rather work to change the social system that makes women feel they need to have abortions than to make the practice illegal. i don't believe it should be legislated. but walking down the street made me think of all the arguments i could make in favor of abortion, if only i hadn't been on my way to work and had time to get into a conversation with these people. (i love talking with picketers, especially ones who are supporting something i oppose.) for example: what about those babies that aren't gifts? are you really going to tell a girl who got pregnant because she was raped that that was a gift from God? what about the fact that the planet is already overpopulated and there are children who are starving, children who don't have basic healthcare, children who have no place to live? shouldn't we try to take care of the people who are already here before those who aren't? and how does abortion "hurt women," anyway?
so maybe i'm not as anti-abortion as i think i am. i still think it's a terrible thing, and i would love to see a world in which no woman ever felt it was necessary to go through that, but in the meantime, i can hardly argue against it.
feel free to dispute!
21 July 2008
Irresponsible Abortion/Contraception Proposal
The U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services is moving to redefine "abortion" in such a broad manner that it could include oral contraceptives and emergency contraception, and to require any program that receives funding through HHS to certify that they will not refuse to hire employees who are morally opposed to abortion/birth control, since that would be employment discrimination. Ultimately, all this will do is make it harder for women to control their own bodies, since they may have to fight to find someone who will prescribe or dispense birth control or perform an abortion.
Why This is Stupid:
1) We already have more people than we can take care of. All this talk about fixing health care, welfare, and social security would be moot if the population—especially the lower-income segments who would ultimately be most affected by this policy change—weren’t already overwhelming the system. I’m not saying we should enforce mandatory breeding laws, but it makes no sense to take away means of reducing births when this country, not to mention the planet at large, has so much trouble taking care of the people who are already here.
2) It is more expensive to care for a child in the welfare or foster care system than it is to provide a woman with contraception and educate her as to its proper use. Anyone who is unhappy about the amount of money the federal government takes from their paycheck should be opposed to this policy.
3) Preventing women from accessing birth control will only increase the incidence of abortions. There will be more unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, and women who might not have become pregnant in the first place will abort.
4) Restricting legal access to abortions will only increase the incidence of illegal, unsafe ones, and cause greater harm to women. If a woman is determined to abort, she’s going to find a way to do it, and unfortunately, not everybody has easy access to a Planned Parenthood clinic or a sympathetic doctor.
5) Contraception cannot be abortion, no matter which (established) definition of pregnancy you use! The whole point of contraception is that it works against conception—preventing pregnancy by its very definition! It is irresponsible and totalitarian for politicians to attempt to redefine medical terms in order to further a moralistic agenda.
6) From the job discrimination perspective, rather than the reproductive health one: If you are morally opposed to any aspect of a given job, you should not take that job. I’m not going to go work for Focus on the Family, for instance, or forLiberty University
Why This is Stupid:
1) We already have more people than we can take care of. All this talk about fixing health care, welfare, and social security would be moot if the population—especially the lower-income segments who would ultimately be most affected by this policy change—weren’t already overwhelming the system. I’m not saying we should enforce mandatory breeding laws, but it makes no sense to take away means of reducing births when this country, not to mention the planet at large, has so much trouble taking care of the people who are already here.
2) It is more expensive to care for a child in the welfare or foster care system than it is to provide a woman with contraception and educate her as to its proper use. Anyone who is unhappy about the amount of money the federal government takes from their paycheck should be opposed to this policy.
3) Preventing women from accessing birth control will only increase the incidence of abortions. There will be more unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, and women who might not have become pregnant in the first place will abort.
4) Restricting legal access to abortions will only increase the incidence of illegal, unsafe ones, and cause greater harm to women. If a woman is determined to abort, she’s going to find a way to do it, and unfortunately, not everybody has easy access to a Planned Parenthood clinic or a sympathetic doctor.
5) Contraception cannot be abortion, no matter which (established) definition of pregnancy you use! The whole point of contraception is that it works against conception—preventing pregnancy by its very definition! It is irresponsible and totalitarian for politicians to attempt to redefine medical terms in order to further a moralistic agenda.
6) From the job discrimination perspective, rather than the reproductive health one: If you are morally opposed to any aspect of a given job, you should not take that job. I’m not going to go work for Focus on the Family, for instance, or for
( read the New York Times article about this proposed change )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)